Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court

Adobe Incorporated & Ors vs Yy And Ors on 13 April, 2026

Author: V. Kameswar Rao

Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

                          $~21
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          %                                             Date of Decision: 13.04.2026
                          +      FAO (COMM) 103/2026
                                 ADOBE INCORPORATED & ORS.                               .....Appellants
                                                   Through:     Ms. Aarshia Behl, Ms. Shruti Baid,
                                                                Ms. Aashi Sharma, Ms. Bhavya
                                                                Manda, Mr. Suryansh Gupta, Ms.
                                                                Yashi Singh and Ms. Ashwarya
                                                                Bansal, Advs.
                                                   versus

                                 YY AND ORS.                                        .....Respondents
                                                   Through:     None.
                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
                          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

                          V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 23713/2026 & CM APPL. 23714/2026 (Exemptions)

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 23823/2026 (For leave to file addl. docs.)

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

4. The application stands disposed of.

FAO (COMM) 103/2026 & CM APPL. 23710/2026, CM APPL.

5. This appeal lays a challenge to an order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the learned District Judge, (Commercial Court-07) South-East District, Saket Court, New Delhi, whereby, the learned District Judge has rejected the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO (COMM) 103/2026 Page 1 of 8 By:RASHMI DABAS Signing Date:22.04.2026 11:36:02 application filed by the appellants under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") and a separate application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC.

6. The submission of Ms. Behl, the learned counsel for the appellants is primarily that the learned District Judge has erred in rejecting the applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC at the first date of hearing, by stating as under: -

".....

31. Having regard to the above, material filed on record is miserably inadequate to term it sufficient for showing a prima facie case in Plaintiff's favour. As Plaintiffs have filed to show any prima facie case, test for balance for convenience and likelihood of irreparable loss, also fails, In view of the above observations, the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC seeking ad-interim injunction is rejected.

32. Plaintiff has proposed to relief of appointment of Local Commissioner primarily based on the pleas taken in consideration while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC. In terms of law settled for appointment of Local Commissioner, it is noted that the Local Commissioner cannot be appointed for carrying investigation for plaintiff and collecting evidence on plaintiff's behalf.

33. For the reasons that plaintiff has not been able to detail specifically any evidence, the request for appointment of Local Commissioner at this stage, is not maintainable. The application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC r/w Order XXXIX Rule 7 and Section 151 CPC is also rejected."

7. She submits that, appropriate would have been for the learned District Judge to issue at least a notice on the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, for the defendants to appear before the Court and answer the allegations as made in the plaint and the application. She states that in view of the averments made in the plaint and application a prima Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO (COMM) 103/2026 Page 2 of 8 By:RASHMI DABAS Signing Date:22.04.2026 11:36:02 facie finding should have been made in favour of the appellants and an interim relief granted as deemed appropriate. She states that it is the categorical assertion in the plaint that defendants are using pirated software.

8. She submits that, the appellants' case is that though the defendants/respondents have licences in respect of Adobe Acrobat [221 licences], defendants/respondents are also using the same product on additional machines without any licence. She states that many of these licences have also not been renewed by the Defendants. It is her submission that, if a Court Commissioner (CC) is appointed, the report of the CC would prove the stand taken by the appellants, which would have assisted the learned District Judge to pass appropriate orders in the injunction application as also final determination of the suit.

9. She relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench in Autodesk Inc and Ors. V. A.V.T. Shankardass and Ors1. to contend that in identical facts the Division Bench held that appointment of the Court Commissioner is imperative to preserve the evidence of software piracy. She has drawn our attention to the observations made by the Division Bench on the issue of quality of evidence required at an ex-parte stage from the plaintiff with respect to the proof of infringement.

10. During the course of the hearing, we have been informed that the learned District Judge after dismissing the applications by the impugned order, issued summons, to list the matter on 07.04.2026, but the District Judge did not hold the Court on that day. She states that the matter has been adjourned to 05.05.2026. She clarifies that the appellant has not taken steps for issuance of summons as it has preferred the present appeal.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and after perusing the order passed by the learned District Judge, we agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, more particularly in the facts of this case pertaining to software piracy that even if the learned District Judge was not inclined to pass an ad-interim ex-parte order, it should have at least issued notice on the applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, 1908, more so, keeping in view of the case pleaded by the appellants in the suit as well as in the applications.

12. Having not done that and rejected above said application, we are restoring the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC on the board of the learned District Judge and setting aside the order dated 20.02.2026 on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for the date fixed i.e., 05.05.2026.

13. We are also of the considered opinion that the impugned order insofar as it dismissed the application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner was also not merited in view of the judgment of Autodesk Inc and Ors. (supra). To avoid any further delay in adjudication, we are proceeding to appoint the Local Commissioner in these proceedings.

CM APPL. 23711/2026 (For appointment of local commissioner(s).

14. We find merit in the submission of the appellant that the facts of this case are identical with Autodesk Inc and Ors. (supra). In the said case as well the learned Single Judge while declining to grant ad-interim ex-parte injunction and issuing notice on the injunction application as well as the summons in the suit, had however dismissed the application seeking 1 MANU/TN/0133/1986, paragraph no. 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO (COMM) 103/2026 Page 4 of 8 By:RASHMI DABAS Signing Date:22.04.2026 11:36:02 appointment of Local Commissioner. The Division Bench in the intra Court appeal itself proceeded to appoint the Local Commissioner so as to preserve the evidence of software piracy.

15. Accordingly, we have taken up for consideration the application for appointment of Local Commissioner being CM APPL. 23711/2026 filed in this appeal so as to preserve the evidence of infringement/software piracy. This Court deems it appropriate to appoint two (2) Local Commissioners; as per the details provided hereinunder:

                                S.No   ADDRESS                              PARTICULARS
                                1.     Wing C, Unit No. 303 and 304,        Ms. Krisha Baweja,
                                       Corporate Avenue,                    Mob. 8860059481
                                       Guru Gobindji Marg,
                                       New Andheri Kurla Link Road,
                                       Andheri East Mumbai,
                                       Maharashtra - 400093
                                2.     Unit No. 502, Wing B, Satellite      Mr.            Shivam
                                       Gazebo, Andheri Kurla Road,          Parashar,        Mob.
                                       Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai,       9643938332
                                       Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra -
                                       400093

16. The mandate of the Local Commissioner is as under:

I. The Local Commissioners, along with a representative of the appellants/plaintiffs (along with technical experts) and their counsel, shall be permitted to enter upon the premises of the respondents mentioned hereinabove, or any other location/premises that may be identified, during the course of the commission, in order to conduct the search and seizure.

II. The Local Commissioners shall inspect the CPUs/Hard Disks of the computers, compact discs and/or other storage/replicating media, with the help of Technical Experts of the appellants/plaintiffs and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO (COMM) 103/2026 Page 5 of 8 By:RASHMI DABAS Signing Date:22.04.2026 11:36:02 determine if the aforesaid storage/ replicating media contain pirated/counterfeit/ unlicensed versions of the appellants' software programmes.

III. The Local Commissioners shall make an inventory of the software program belonging to the appellant contained in computers systems/laptops/servers/ CPUs/Hard Disks and/or in CDs/ DVDs and/or upon any other storage media, as well as photocopies of licenses held, if any;

IV. If the computers and/or other storage/replicating media of the Defendants are password protected, the defendants shall make accessible the said password(s) so as to enable the Local Commissioner to execute the commission.

V. The Local Commissioners shall take into custody all Central Processing Units (CPUs), servers/ Compact Disks/ DVDs and/or any other storage media containing illegal/unlicensed/pirated/ unauthorized versions of the appellants/plaintiffs software, identified by the accompanying technical expert as such and thereafter seal/ seize the same so as to preserve the evidence of unlicensed usage; VI. In case the premises are found locked, the Local Commissioners shall be permitted to break open the lock(s), with the help of the local police, if access to the premises, is denied to the Commissioners. VII. Upon being requested the concerned jurisdictional police authorities, the Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police and/or the Station House Officer ('SHO') shall render necessary cooperation for execution of the commissions, as per this order. VIII. The Local Commissioner is permitted to take photographs and video-

graph of the proceedings of the commission, if it is deemed appropriate.

IX. Both parties shall provide assistance to the Local Commissioner for carrying out the aforesaid directions.

X. The Local Commissioners while executing the commission, shall ensure that there is no disruption to the business of the defendants/respondents, except for the purposes of the execution of the commission. The commission shall be executed in the peaceful manner.

XI. The Local Commissioners shall hand over the seized material on 'superdari' to the Respondents/Defendants or their representatives, who may be directed to give an appropriate undertaking that the sealed materials will be produced before this Hon'ble Court, as and when directed;

XII. Copy of the order and complete paper-book shall be served by the Local Commissioners upon the defendants/respondents at the time of execution of commissions.

17. The Local Commissioners shall execute the commission within a period of one [1] week from today and shall submit the report before the learned District Judge within a period of one [1] week thereafter.

18. The Local Commissioners shall be paid an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- each for executing the Local Commissions, the aforesaid fee shall be excluding the out-of-pocket expenses which they may incur for executing the commission.

19. In terms of the foregoing, the present application stands disposed of.

20. Either the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff or the learned Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO (COMM) 103/2026 Page 7 of 8 By:RASHMI DABAS Signing Date:22.04.2026 11:36:02 Local Commissioners are directed to collect a certified copy of this order from the Registry (Dispatch Branch) before for execution of the Commission.

21. The Local Commissioners shall carry the certified copy of this Order for execution of the Commission and a copy of the same shall be served upon the Respondent/Defendant by the Local Commissioners at the time of the execution of the Commissions.

22. The order passed today shall not be uploaded for a period of one (1) week to enable the execution of the commissions.

23. This order be given as Dasti under the signature of Court Master.

24. In view of this order, the application under Order Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC filed by the appellants before the learned District Judge which had been dismissed vide the impugned order shall stand revived.

25. The learned District Judge shall consider the said application along with the report to be submitted by the Local Commissioners. In the meantime, we make it clear that after the commission is executed the appellants shall take steps to serve summons and a copy of the suit to the respondents herein for the date fixed before the learned District Judge.

26. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands disposed of.

27. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J APRIL 13, 2026/mt/AJ Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO (COMM) 103/2026 Page 8 of 8 By:RASHMI DABAS Signing Date:22.04.2026 11:36:02